What are the requirements of ACS accreditation? Philosophical requirements: Evidence of a clear understanding of the nature and purpose of a classical education and an incorporation of that understanding in the school’s operating documents and public statements Academic requirements: A clearly articulated statement of the school’s academic goals at every level and a clear process of ensuring the achieving those goals Curricular requirements: Full or partial implementation of the Latin-centered Classical Core Program Methodological requirements: Demonstration of an understanding of the importance of traditional, teacher-directed instruction in the classroom and a process by which those methodologies are communicated to school staff Assessment requirements: Demonstration of the value-added benefit of the school’s academic program through standardized test scores and compliance with ACS’s regular process of reporting test scores Doctrinal requirements: A doctrinal statement consisting of the Nicene Creed or a statement of belief consistent with the Nicene Creed.[1] Other Information Required from Schools: A copy of current school bylaws (for existing schools only) List of staff and faculty which includes grades and subjects taught and level of education List of books and resources used in current curriculum A statement of faith consisting of or consistent with the Nicene Creed and verification…

Is education technology a “$60 billion hoax?”

The enthusiastic and uncritical promotion of technology in the classroom is beginning to attract increasingly hostility among researchers and professionals in the psychological community.

One of those trying to draw attention to the harm that can be caused by the prevalence of screens in our schools is Dr. Nicholas Kardaras, Clinical Assistant Professor at Stony Brook University’s Health Sciences Center and author of the book Glow Kids: How Screen Addiction is Hijacking Our Kids—and How to Break the Trance.

In almost every classroom in America today, you will find some type of screen—smartboards, Chromebooks, tablets, smartphones. From inner-city schools to those in rural and remote towns, we have accepted tech in the classroom as a necessary and beneficial evolution in education.

Kardaras calls the screen revolution in schools a “$60 billion hoax.”

Tech in the classroom not only leads to worse educational outcomes for kids, … it can also clinically hurt them. I’ve worked with over a thousand teens in the past 15 years and have observed that students who have been raised on a high-tech diet not only appear to struggle more with attention and focus, but also seem to suffer from an adolescent malaise that appears to be a direct byproduct of their digital immersion. Indeed, over two hundred peer-reviewed studies point to screen time correlating to increased ADHD, screen addiction, increased aggression, depression, anxiety and even psychosis.

Kardaras attributes the popularity of educational technology, not to any demonstrated benefits for students, but to the amount of money those who design and sell it stand to make. And the argument many of those making what the author calls a “cash grab” make is that students no longer have the attention span required for traditional education. Kardaras responds that technology is the cause of this problem, not its cure.

It creates a vicious and addictive ADHD cycle: The more a child is stimulated, the more that child needs to keep getting stimulated in order to hold their attention.

The author quotes Dr. Kentaro Toyama, associate professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information, who was initially encouraged about the effects of technology in schools.

Rather than finding a digital educational cure, he came to understand what he calls technology’s “Law of Amplification”: technology could help education where it’s already doing well, but it does little for mediocre educational systems. Worse, in dysfunctional schools, it “can cause outright harm.” He added: “Unfortunately, there is no technological fix…more technology only magnifies socioeconomic disparities, and the only way to avoid that is non-technological.”

The rest of the article surveys the disturbing recent research on educational technology. Read it here.

Related Posts

Well, it’s National Penmanship Day, which gives us a great excuse to extol the benefits of cursive handwriting. But why should we have to do it when we have Iris Hatfield, creator of New American Read more…

Writing in the Intercollegiate Review, Gary Olmstead answers the question, “Why Read Literature?” There were times during college when writer’s block threatened me with failing grades or missed deadlines. Scrambling for inspiration, I’d pick up Read more…